Does the UCCJEA govern Utah adoption proceedings involving out-of-state parents? In re Adoption of B.H. Explained

In In re Adoption of B.H., the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the jurisdictional framework governing interstate adoption proceedings, holding that Utah courts may exercise jurisdiction under the Utah Adoption Act without first establishing jurisdiction under the Utah Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

Background and Facts

A child was born in Montana to married parents. Within one week of birth, the mother voluntarily relinquished her parental rights and consented to place the child with Utah residents for adoption. The mother listed a man other than her husband as the father on the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) request form. The husband-father received notice of the Utah adoption proceedings, intervened, and genetic testing confirmed his paternity. The district court terminated the father’s parental rights and finalized the adoption.

Key Legal Issues

The father challenged the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) the court lacked UCCJEA jurisdiction over custody matters, and (2) the defective ICPC form listing the wrong father violated interstate placement requirements. He argued that UCCJEA jurisdiction was a prerequisite to exercising jurisdiction under the Utah Adoption Act.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court of appeals held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction under the Utah Adoption Act. First, the Utah Adoption Act confers jurisdiction in the district where prospective adoptive parents reside and expressly authorizes termination of parental rights proceedings joined with adoption petitions. Second, the UCCJEA expressly states that it “does not govern . . . an adoption proceeding,” making UCCJEA jurisdiction irrelevant. The court also found that the father’s receipt of notice and intervention in the proceedings conferred jurisdiction over him as an out-of-state parent.

Regarding the ICPC violation, the court held that while the form was defective, this did not divest the court of jurisdiction. However, the court remanded for specific findings regarding ICPC compliance because the district court failed to make the required statutory finding that ICPC requirements had been met.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah adoption proceedings are governed exclusively by the Utah Adoption Act’s jurisdictional provisions, not the UCCJEA. Practitioners should focus jurisdictional challenges on compliance with the specific requirements of the Adoption Act rather than attempting to invoke UCCJEA standards. The decision also emphasizes the importance of ensuring trial courts make express findings regarding ICPC compliance, as required by statute, even when ICPC violations may not affect jurisdiction.